Video: The Romneys interview

posted at 8:41 am on March 4, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Allahpundit highlighted a significant portion of Chris Wallace’s interview with Mitt Romney in last night’s QOTD, but the interview with both Mitt and Ann Romney is also worth a watch and its own post. Some of this came out ahead of its air date yesterday, such as Ann Romney’s joking aside that she was “happy to blame the media” for the loss. She also expresses frustration with the Romney campaign, which she and her son Tagg felt was too constrictive for the candidate. Ann also attacked the Obama campaign for its “unfair” depiction of her husband.

Ann also scotches the rumors that the Massachusetts GOP approached her to run for John Kerry’s open Senate seat. No one approached her, Ann says, although she also heard the speculation about the supposedly “fun” idea. No one asked her if she thought it would be fun, and said there was no way she’d have ever agreed to run.

The Corner picks up on another part of the Mitt-only interview dealing with the primary fight. Unlike most commentators, Romney doesn’t feel that the “long and blistering primary” made him any more conservative:

“The idea that somehow . . . the primary made me become more conservative than I was just isn’t accurate,” Romney said on Fox News Sunday. Instead, the “long and blistering primary” led to a series of attacks that he believed created an “unfavorable impression” of him.

Romney also criticized the debates, saying that sometimes there were “questions that are kind of silly, that end up hurting you in the general” election. He specifically highlighted the instance when GOP candidates were asked if they would accept a deal that had a 10:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases.

Two thoughts on that topic. First, many supporters of other candidates in the primary will argue that the “blistering” aspect of the primary had its source in Team Romney, which laid on the negative campaigning rather thickly in the months leading up to the actual primaries and caucus events. No one will forget the heavy-handed attacks on Newt Gingrich, at least, as soon as his star began to rise after a debate in North Carolina. That doesn’t mean that Romney’s wrong about the problem, but just seems to suggest that he didn’t contribute to it.

Romney’s right about the debates, too, but only to a certain point. The questions in the debates were intended to tear down the candidates, but Republicans will have to expect that as long as they continue to insist on pairing with media outlets for the debates. They can stage these debates themselves and narrowcast them on the Internet and invite C-SPAN to televise them, and then choose moderators that will focus on real issues rather than contraception and the latest TV ads. Until the GOP makes up its mind to do that, Republican candidates will have to endure the freak-show moderation and game-show formats imposed on them by the mainstream media.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Well, yes and no. The U.S. population grew roughly 6% from 2005 (295 million) to 2012 (312 million). So if you’re saying that Romney in 2012 outperformed Bush in 2004 in swing states by 50,000 votes, or about 4% in raw vote gain, then Romney actually lost ground overall.

More broadly, though, I agree with your concern. Historically, Democrats had more registered voters than Republicans, but their voters were less likely to show up to the polls. ACORN in 2008 really helped correct that issue by connecting voters and facilitating infrastructure to bus hundreds of thousands of poor people to early voting and/or the polls, in a way that hadn’t been done before. Obama ratcheted up that strategy in 2012. And no, the bulk of those new voters are not “fraudulent” voters.

Republicans need to be spending a lot of time identifying potential new voters and working to connect them to the party, register them, and ultimately turn them out to the polls. Otherwise, we’re screwed.

I actually tend to agree that the media should be left out of early debates. Oh, sure, it’s probably impossible to keep the media out of the later debates, but early serious debates should serve to remove un-serious candidates, and set a certain degree of tone for the late stage debates.

Frankly, the primary was a total circus, and although I followed it online I couldn’t force myself to follow the debates till later, simply because of how much of a freak show so many of them were.

The second problem with the primary, is that we had some truly clueless candidates vying for the nomination. I got the impression, several times, that everyone assumed Obama losing was a foregone conclusion, and that winning the primary was the only thing standing between them as the Presidency. This seemed to prompt everyone, and their uncle, to stay in long after it was obvious they couldn’t win. Numerous candidates should have dropped out before we even got to the first primary, if they had done so it would’ve led to a shorter less damaging primary that would’ve benefited WHOMEVER eventually came out on top. Instead, almost everyone stuck around.

Basically, in 2011 it felt like Obama’s defeat was a foregone conclusion, but the longer the Republican primary was in Zoo status the better Obama polled. By late January of 2012, it was obvious that the election was going to be an actual contest, and by February it was obviously going to be a horse race. Yet, because of ego and stubbornness, dead candidates stuck around till blasted April. All that time, the mainstream media had a field day with us, and made our side out to be a bunch of idiots.

Yet we still played along, because so many of our candidates were stubborn, and because so many of our own activists are also stubborn and tend to hold grudges.

And, just the standard disclaimer. Yes, as much as I like Romney, I had wished that a viable candidate that was just a bit more conservative had been running. Sadly, the viable candidates were Romney, Pawlenty (whom was an even worse campaigner than Romney,) and Perry, whom had a run of bad luck with back problems.

Frankly, early on I was supporting Perry, despite being Mormon, because I thought he could more effectively unite the party. It was obvious by late 2011 however, that his reputation was too badly mangled by his flubs for him to recover by 2012.

Everyone else had incredibly serious flaws, and flat out could not have won a general election campaign. I realize some people are still in denial about that, but that is my honest assessment, and I feel comfortable I can back that up.

Everyone loves to talk about how honorable Romney is. He reminds me more of that eddie guy on leave it to beaver. Always there to stab someone in the back when he knows he can get away with it, but to your face, the nicest guy around. Same damned schtick Obama used in his primary against Hillary.

Newt remained positive, with almost no negative attacks on any of the competition until after his first Primary victory in South Carolina.

Romney had been running a scorched earth campaign from the git go.

History is not your friend.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Romney ran a ridiculous primary campaign. It was pretty much “I’m the only electable candidate and these other guys are yahoos, so pick me.” Unfortunately, Romney’s basic message was pretty much spot-on: he was the strongest of a very weak field of candidates.

But setting all that aside, I thought the attacks against Romney were much more vicious than Romney’s attacks on other candidates. Romney’s hit on Gingrich for the $1.6 million dollar Freddie Mac contract was tough, but I thought in bounds, given the central role that Freddie and Fannie played in the housing collapse and Gingrich’s potential role in helping them skirt additional federal regulation. It wasn’t like Romney asked Gingrich in the debate whether he intends to divorce his current wife if she ever developed breast cancer, for Pete’s sake.

People like to attack Newt as if he was attacking from the left when attacking Romney.
Of course, I do not understand how that works out. Romney is supposed to be a honorable guy, honesty in dealings sort of person. Yet when a company he invests in, is the primary liaison for his company to, and it increases the amount of fraud against medicare and medicaid significantly under his watch, and is then offloaded to another company for a profit, an honorable man would make the other company whole. It was his responsibility to sell a company honestly, no? But he has multiple stories about when he knew there was a problem. When he sold the company, he supposedly had no idea there were problems. But when he was faced with questions about his failure in leadership later, he claimed he knew about the problems and had gotten them under control before the sale. Of course, one of those is a lie, is that the character of an honorable man? I am sorry, but your business dealings are fair game in a campaign. Anyone who thought Obama, with a billion dollars and all the media on his side was not going to have access to this information unless Newt brought is up is pretty ignorant.

Now, if Romney did not have a problem with this, as though he had dealt honestly in his business practices, and was not hypocritical between his business and political rhetoric, Newts attacks would not have had much of an effect. You just meet it with a calm demeanor and state the facts and let it stand. But instead, Romney had all his right media outlets lay out a scorched earth campaign against Newt that was anything but grassroots. It was pure artificial turf.

Oh, so sorry for refraining from kicking a man when he’s down. Call me crazy, but I prefer to actually focus on the current problems we face rather than constantly beating a dead horse, unlike some people.

I am not a fan of Mitt, but I voted for him and even contributed $35 (because the alternative would destroy the country). I do agree with him on the length of the primary campaign. The GOP wimped out by agreeing to let libs like Stephanoloulos moderate the primary debates and introduce the “war on women.”

What I fail to comprehend is that anyone could spend six years of his life and $50 million of his own money seeking the Presidency and then hire the bumbling establishment hacks to run his campaign and not fight harder against Obama.

Quick, lets see if we can SHAME astonerii into shutting up. How about you just let Romney take the BEATING he deserves for not wanting the presidency, but wanting to be the candidate?

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 1:59 PM

The broader point is that our primary process was much too long and had far too many MSM-sponsored debates. As a result, our primary process turned into a protracted “circular firing squad” that severely wounded the eventual nominee.

The polling analysis bears that out. The candidates’ negatives shot up sharply beginning in January. Romney won, of course, but was forced to deplete his entire $80 million dollar primary war chest to do so. Thus, when Romney clinched, he was unable to effectively counter some $100 million in Obama attack ads reinforcing the same “Romney is a robber baron who ships jobs to China” meme that began in the primary. Romney’s negatives kept increasing and he was never able to recover from it.

Was that “the” reason he lost? No, there were several. But it was a major contributing factor.

Was that “the” reason he lost? No, there were several. But it was a major contributing factor.

Outlander on March 4, 2013 at 2:07 PM

The reason his negatives shot up in January is because that is what happens when people get to know you. Mr Honorable COULD have run an HONORABLE campaign and won or lost on that activity. Instead, he blew $80,000,000 on dishonorable and many times false accusations 99.9% negative campaign ads. Then you all have the nerve to come around here and bitch and moan that, OMG, Romney could not win because he spent all his money, the ostensibly AMAZING money manager mismanaged his money destroying everyone else and then blames them because no one likes him after? Is there ANYTHING at all that Obamney is willing to take the blame for?

Was that “the” reason he lost? No, there were several. But it was a major contributing factor.

Outlander on March 4, 2013 at 2:07 PM

The reason his negatives shot up in January is because that is what happens when people get to know you. Mr Honorable COULD have run an HONORABLE campaign and won or lost on that activity. Instead, he blew $80,000,000 on dishonorable and many times false accusations 99.9% negative campaign ads. Then you all have the nerve to come around here and b!tch and moan that, OMG, Romney could not win because he spent all his money, the ostensibly AMAZING money manager mismanaged his money destroying everyone else and then blames them because no one likes him after? Is there ANYTHING at all that Obamney is willing to take the blame for?

I also see that you still cannot get over that little man-crush you have for Newt. Really, I just don’t understand it at all.

WolvenOne on March 4, 2013 at 2:15 PM

I have no crush on Newt. I have admiration for his specific accomplishments which are a solid and known aspect of your nation’s history.
Are you going to argue the same thing about Mitt? Since I do not see Mitts awesome record the same way you do. I guess I can retort that the only reason you like Romney is because you are only support your religious brethren, probably with the hope to be on his god planet in the afterlife.
Oh, was that below the belt?

Romney sucked. Romney sold this nation down the stream for his own ego and his own gain.

I sold a car to a couple who lived in an apartment. I knew it had an oil leak and was totally honest in its condition. I am sure they probably failed to put oil in it, but it died about a week later. They did not come looking for their money back, but when I saw the tow truck there to pick the car up I went and talked with them. Then I gave them a large porting of their money back.

Romney sold a company he claims he knew had legal problem to another company without having given those details out to that company, and when the government came along and fined the new owners more than the company was worth, Romney washed his hands and moved onto his next, likely nefarious money transfer scheme. Honor to such a degree is beyond measure!

I’m not trying to shut down an argument. I’m never really sure what your argument is. Your words ooze contempt for Mormons. That’s fine, but your need to attack the man makes you a hypocrite when you call for him to be forgotten at the same time.

You just don’t seem to have a lot going on for you. I clicked here because ED posted an interview with a guy that ran for president and his wife. Some of us like him, some don’t. Most don’t feel a need to crusade against him.

On a serious note, when was the last time you showered or brushed your teeth. These activities make you feel better about yourself and could help you engage in worthwhile daily activities.

Romney sucks, everything he does sucks, everyone he’s ever talked to sucks. Everything is Romney’s fault. I’m gonna show up on every Romney thread ever and slam Romney forever, cause he just sucks just like every other delusional Mormon.

I love Gingrich, Newts the best guy ever. He’s never made a single moral or ethical flaw in his entire life, and he could totally have won if Romney wasn’t such a meanie. If it weren’t for that Gingrich would’ve won, and dragged the senate along with him. Newt’s the best, all hail the power of Newt!

I’m not trying to shut down an argument. I’m never really sure what your argument is. Your words ooze contempt for Mormons. That’s fine, but your need to attack the man makes you a hypocrite when you call for him to be forgotten at the same time.

You just don’t seem to have a lot going on for you. I clicked here because ED posted an interview with a guy that ran for president and his wife. Some of us like him, some don’t. Most don’t feel a need to crusade against him.

On a serious note, when was the last time you showered or brushed your teeth. These activities make you feel better about yourself and could help you engage in worthwhile daily activities.

Rusty Allen on March 4, 2013 at 2:32 PM

You are trying to shut down the debate when you attack me the way you did.

People like to attack Newt as if he was attacking from the left when attacking Romney.
Of course, I do not understand how that works out. Romney is supposed to be a honorable guy, honesty in dealings sort of person. Yet when a company he invests in, is the primary liaison for his company to, and it increases the amount of fraud against medicare and medicaid significantly under his watch, and is then offloaded to another company for a profit, an honorable man would make the other company whole.
astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Romney sucks, everything he does sucks, everyone he’s ever talked to sucks. Everything is Romney’s fault. I’m gonna show up on every Romney thread ever and slam Romney forever, cause he just sucks just like every other delusional Mormon.

I love Gingrich, Newts the best guy ever. He’s never made a single moral or ethical flaw in his entire life, and he could totally have won if Romney wasn’t such a meanie. If it weren’t for that Gingrich would’ve won, and dragged the senate along with him. Newt’s the best, all hail the power of Newt!

astonerii on June, 2011 – Till The End of Time PM

WolvenOne on March 4, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Hot Air, I do not think this was in error. He is putting words in my mouth deliberately. This should be a bannable offense, and is when you read your rules of conduct.

Not surprising that Romney, a dishonorable opponent if ever there was one would have sycophants who are also dishonorable in debate.

The obamafication of the Republican party. One of Romney’s greatest sins against the nation.

Would that be considered a personal attack on my character, to shut me up?
I’m just trying to learn the rules.

Rusty Allen on March 4, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Since you are not speaking about the topic at hand, it does not really matter what you consider it. Those are personal attacks. They are specifically intended to single me out as “not one of us” and try to use peer pressure style to make me feel uncomfortable enough to just leave. The fact that you are incapable of seeing or admitting it to yourself pretty much speaks volumes about the lifestyle you live and your worldview in general.

The reason his negatives shot up in January is because that is what happens when people get to know you. Mr Honorable COULD have run an HONORABLE campaign and won or lost on that activity. Instead, he blew $80,000,000 on dishonorable and many times false accusations 99.9% negative campaign ads. ***

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 2:19 PM

The general public didn’t dislike Romney due to Romney’s attacks on other GOP candidates. They disliked Romney because they couldn’t identify with him and believed he was a corporate raider or, in Jon Stewart’s words, “that guy that came in and fired your dad.” Romney was framed that way during the primaries and could never escape it.

All the major candidates (Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum) slimed each other during the primaries, and laid waste to Reagan’s 11th Commandment. But I think our process invited that kind of “race to the bottom.” After the 10th debate, everyone had already staked out their positions on every conceivable issue and had little more to talk about. The media continuously provoked the candidates into attacking each other, and eventually they did.

The resultant circular firing squad was detrimental to the party as a whole. The candidates bear responsibility, of course, but the party should be more involved in regulating the primary process to keep things focused on the issues and not allowing the liberals to pollute the process and get the candidates to turn on each other as viciously as they did.

I enjoyed the interview, as I generally enjoy the Romney’s as a couple. I just recognize that you spend a great deal of time airing your animosity towards Mitt Romney. I don’t like people showing up on Palin threads spewing hatred, when many just want to read about someone they support.

I just thought that if you got up and showered and changed clothes, you could enjoy the day a little more and find some things in the world that Mitt Romney has yet to do away with, like air and sunshine.

My offer to buy you a sandwich was genuine. Do you not like sandwiches?

Just because I do not think that all of the actions of a company are honorable does not make me one of the OWS Zuccotti Park protesters. Stating which parts I find offensive to good morals is good for the free market. I do not recall demanding any government intervention. I am happy to just see his reputation damaged and allow him to suffer losses in business in the future.

But, since you seem to think that any attack on a company is OWS, I thought for sure you were on the side of redeeming ENRON. That is not the case? Well color me surprised that you are a massive hypocrite. Seems to be pretty much the way of the MORMON LIFE?

The Democrat/Socialist/Marxist Party has taken this commandment to heart. (The left use it much more successfully than the right uses Alinskey tactics.) In reality, only Reagan seemed to practice this on the right.

Newt remained out of the fray until after South Carolina and the scorched earth campaign of Romney. Romney could have avoided the fight if he would have been remotely honorable in campaigning. He chose to start at the bottom, Newt had chosen to try and go the route of simply selling himself. Romney chose to go the route of personal destruction, because he knew his money advantage would win. Negative campaigning only in the primary though shows who Romney’s ideological allies are.

Romney brought the damage he took onto himself. He should have went positive and sold himself.

Very good point, Romney played the game with the current rules, as did Newt, Rick, etc. It shouldn’t have been that way. That’s why I have tried to argue that while Mitt was not the ideal candidate, he was our candidate, and the party should have helped shaped the dynamic to keep him marketable.

When Obama began to overtake Hillary, the dems controlled the dynamic by limiting the tension between him and her. They had some heated exchanges and accusations early in the primary process. But when it was apparent he would win, they controlled the context.

Our party on the other hand allowed the media to paint Romney as hated by the others. They should have presented santorum and Newt with him to say, all is fair in war and politics and this is our guy.

Mitt is not the most likable to begin with; however the machine failed him as well. He was right about benghazi and crowley was wrong. He was right about jeep, about russia, etc. The party and independent groups should have been all over the airwaves attacking the media’s false accounts of his statements.

I enjoyed the interview, as I generally enjoy the Romney’s as a couple. I just recognize that you spend a great deal of time airing your animosity towards Mitt Romney. I don’t like people showing up on Palin threads spewing hatred, when many just want to read about someone they support.

I just thought that if you got up and showered and changed clothes, you could enjoy the day a little more and find some things in the world that Mitt Romney has yet to do away with, like air and sunshine.

My offer to buy you a sandwich was genuine. Do you not like sandwiches?

Rusty Allen on March 4, 2013 at 2:55 PM

That is your problem, not mine. If you just want to read about your idol in the comfort of your own little world, feel free to stop at the end of the article and not read the comments.

The argument about hygiene is a childish one, you should grow up and try and be a contributing member of society.

As for the sandwich, I eat at home, so my wife can poison me properly.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 1:57 PMRomney is supposed to be a honorable guy, honesty in dealings sort of person.

Can you expand on this comment? “Honesty in dealings”?

Rusty Allen on March 4, 2013 at 2:13 PM

It’s a swipe against the Mormon church.

“Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?” is a standard catch-all question used in Priesthood interviews that covers ethical business and professional practices and honesty and fairness in social relationships.

Romney brought the damage he took onto himself. He should have went positive and sold himself.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 3:02 PM

During the senate campaign against the murderer of Mary Jo Kopechne, Romney made a verbal slip at a veterans shelter that he felt worried was offensive to the veterans. A few weeks later,large quantities of milk started showing up at the shelter already bought and paid for. This continued for three years before anyone found out that Romney was behind it.

If Romney failed to sell himself, it was because of a virtue. Mitt Romney has a history of doing nice things for people because it is right, not for self aggrandizement.

“Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?” is a standard catch-all question used in Priesthood interviews that covers ethical business and professional practices and honesty and fairness in social relationships.

Alberta_Patriot on March 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Actually, I did not know that. Thanks.

I have just always tried to have honest dealings with people.

If I get too much change, it is always refunded. If I am not charged for something in my shopping bag, I announce it. Doing what a law demands you to do or you will be punished is not a moral good. Doing it because it is the right thing to do is a moral good.

If Romney failed to sell himself, it was because of a virtue. Mitt Romney has a history of doing nice things for people because it is right, not for self aggrandizement.

Alberta_Patriot on March 4, 2013 at 3:19 PM

It is not a virtue when you are running for office to be the leader. If you know you are not willing to do what it takes to win for the betterment of the nation, then what are you doing running in the first place?

Of course, he was perfectly willing to lie about Newt in his advertisements, that were 99.9% negative. So, there is that. Is that really more virtuous? To win by destruction rather than win by building?

I understand what you are saying. But in context of running a business and running a campaign, Romney was not honorable. He was downright vile.

Romney is not McCain. Romney is a conservative. Governing in any state moderates anyone’s politics and principals. There are too many competing interests and voters with cognitive dissonance to adhere strictly to principals. The best any sincere politician (ie, not Democrat) can do is fashion compromises that pull resolution closer to our side than the other. Our problem is that our side won’t accept that. The left has been doing that since the 60s. The four millions idiots who voted for McCain but didn’t vote for Romney are going to cause us to lose elections until they get a grip on reality.

Gonna roll straight from hate speech, to questioning OTHER peoples honor? Wow, what a disgusting human being you are.

And no, it didn’t hit me hard. I’m used to hate speech, it’s nothing more than noise now. That doesn’t mean I don’t recognize it when I see it however.

WolvenOne on March 4, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Your method does not work against me.
You failed to recognize it. It was not there. The only attack was on the INDIVIDUAL. They were being hypocritical and I questioned if that fit their chosen philosophy. It in fact actually elevates Mormonism, as it specifically states that Mormonism is supposed to value honesty and discourage hypocrisy.

You failed to recognize it. It was not there. The only attack was on the INDIVIDUAL. They were being hypocritical and I questioned if that fit their chosen philosophy. It in fact actually elevates Mormonism, as it specifically states that Mormonism is supposed to value honesty and discourage hypocrisy.

Are you sure you are able to recognize hate speech?

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Yeah, well, I was the recipient of your little hissy fit against the Mormons, but Mormonism is not my “chosen philosophy”. My chosen philosophy is the same as Newt’s.

You equated Mormonism with hypocrisy. The INDIVIDUAL had nothing to do with it.

No, you did with your honesty jab. I began discussing your distain for Mormons because it was apparent. Then you confirmed it. If there was nothing for me to bring up, I wouldn’t have. And if I was wrong you wouldn’t have confirmed my comments.

No, you did with your honesty jab. I began discussing your distain for Mormons because it was apparent. Then you confirmed it. If there was nothing for me to bring up, I wouldn’t have. And if I was wrong you wouldn’t have confirmed my comments.

Rusty Allen on March 4, 2013 at 3:57 PM

You are dishonest.
You attack and then say it was not meant that way. It is a lie.

Yeah, well, I was the recipient of your little hissy fit against the Mormons, but Mormonism is not my “chosen philosophy”. My chosen philosophy is the same as Newt’s.

You equated Mormonism with hypocrisy. The INDIVIDUAL had nothing to do with it.

Gelsomina on March 4, 2013 at 3:50 PM

So, change the word Mormon to Catholic. Still the same argument.
You are a hypocrite. You know that not all business dealings are honorable, but are willing to put them off limits to questioning because they were done by someone you like.

Nothing of what I said was dishonest. And objective person would see that you attempted to incite Mormons with your honesty statement. You know where it came from and you used it in spite. You hate Mormons and you have personally attacked more than one person today by saying we lie or by ascribing Mormonism to us as if it’s a negative.

You need help. Your purpose is to be here today and attack a religion. That’s a fact and it’s a sad one. And anyone who is honest agrees with me.

Well color me surprised that you are a massive hypocrite. Seems to be pretty much the way of the MORMON LIFE?

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 2:58 PM

You failed to recognize it. It was not there. The only attack was on the INDIVIDUAL.

Seems to be pretty much the way of the MORMON LIFE?

Liar liar pants on fire. ;)

Are you sure you are able to recognize hate speech?

Yep, pretty darn sure, you flaming hypocrite.

WolvenOne on March 4, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Wow, I have never seen someone take a statement out of context to make their point before. You are an extremely devious one aren’t you? Next the question mark will become an exclamation point or be deleted entirely. It is how you roll apparently…

Amazing to what DISHONORABLE extents you people will go in order to defend a man who DELIBERATELY LOST THE ELECTION! Who wanted to be president less than anyone his own son Tagg knew. It seems Romney being the nicest man in the world just draws the DISHONORABLE to him.

If I were to try to lose the election, I would play it like Romney.

Advertisements? Pay 4 times the going rate!
Base? Throw them under the bus!
RomneyCare? Double down on stupid!
Won the first debate? Discard every positive aspect and go back to the progressive approach!

But it is ok, He washed himself for the interview and got a haircut. That is what matters most in life…

Nothing of what I said was dishonest. And objective person would see that you attempted to incite Mormons with your honesty statement. You know where it came from and you used it in spite. You hate Mormons and you have personally attacked more than one person today by saying we lie or by ascribing Mormonism to us as if it’s a negative.

You need help. Your purpose is to be here today and attack a religion. That’s a fact and it’s a sad one. And anyone who is honest agrees with me.

You know what you did, you took a dig and then once called on it let the hate flow. Is attacking religion fair game? Maybe it is.

I’m pretty sure calling me a moron is a personal attack, which once again makes you a hypocrite.

You know why you are here. And to be fair, I don’t know if you used to be a Mormon, or one treated you bad, or fired you or what. But you have some hate issues.

And it’s not a personal attack to point out that you have been sitting in one spot for several hours trying to bring down a man and a faith because you have issues. I know you didn’t brush your teeth today, that’s not a personal attack. it’s just fact. You need a friend not a computer. And until you stop hating so much, you won’t get one.

Is there someone you could call that would help you out? Or have you alienated everyone you know. You work from home too? Any interactions with people? Just trying to help.

You’re a screwed up little dude, but it’s okay we all have our problems. Just being honest in all my dealings.

Nothing of what I said was dishonest. And objective person would see that you attempted to incite Mormons with your honesty statement. You know where it came from and you used it in spite. You hate Mormons and you have personally attacked more than one person today by saying we lie or by ascribing Mormonism to us as if it’s a negative.

You need help. Your purpose is to be here today and attack a religion. That’s a fact and it’s a sad one. And anyone who is honest agrees with me.

Rusty Allen on March 4, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Well, an entire thread where I did no such thing. I do not much care about Mormons. They are nice enough people. I use to sit and talk with them for hours a time next to my grandmother who enjoyed their lessons and their handouts for reading. We compared books and quotes and discussed their true meanings and how The Book of Mormon was very much in line with Jesus’ teachings…

Now feel free to show me where before you posted on this thread I showed a disdain for religion. Every last one of my posts are accounted for.

Romney, greatest executive in history. Most awesome mind to ever run for president. The single most electable person on the planet. Smartest man in the room. Courageously blames his honorable competition for his failures!

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:18 AM

Or in my words. He would have been 2% differentiated from Obama on policy, but he would be doing it because he really believed it would help, not because he knew it would harm.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:20 AM

It has always been known Romney’s campaigning is amateur and ineffectual against any real opposition. The only reason he won the primary was because he had help from the supposedly right of center media outlets, such as Hot Air. It is like they enjoy the attention they get while Obama is in office or Romney has some chips on the sidelines that he could call in at just the right (prior to Florida) time.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Gingrich would have done better than Romney. Not only that, he would have propelled the vote in the right direction for getting us the Senate at the same time. Newt Runs campaigns of ideas that coalesce and inspire. He would have had something concrete for conservatives to hold onto, in something similar to the Contract with America. He would not have been hesitant to attack the media or Obama. When Obama and the moderator colluded together do you think he would have just let it slide and allow himself to look bad? Dream on. That would have been a bounce and hold in the making.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:32 AM

There was a difference. About 2% on policy.
Healthcare, he was the originator.
Coal fired power plants. Same view as Obama, they are people killers!
Humanity? They both had as adviser the same Malthusian John Holdren.
Global Warming? Even to the left of Obama.
Minimum Wage? To the left of Obama.
The safety net? Same as Obama.
Auto Bailouts, it was Romney’s idea don’t you know?
Taxes? Here there is little evidence he actually believed his own rhetoric, but he was arguing to the right of Obama at least… Then again, I never heard him argue everyone should have skin in the game.

Pretty much across the board Romney’s executive actions are nearly Identical to Obama’s.

To many people, Romney was a good reason to excuse any negative opinions they had of Obama, because Romney created the precedent for each and every single Obama action.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:41 AM

That is so much smoke and mirrors. Your argument is that any person in business is immune to criticism is not helpful for the free market. From the left? Last I heard honorable dealings was a conservative and virtuous part of life.

Lets see, didn’t Romeny argue that Newt should give the money back he earned for his consulting? Who did you support again? Didn’t Romney in fact start that set of points with his attacks on Newt? Why, yes, yes he did.

Romney IS A PROGRESSIVE, he gets a pass. Newt is a conservative, ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK!

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:46 AM

No, they did not. They painted Romney as a far right lunatic. People had to come to the conclusion that Romney was really a leftwing moron on their own, and many did. The others, because of Romney’s own actions, were able to be convinced that Obama really must be moderate, because, well he is just doing the same things the Republican nominee did.

We all warned you about EXACTLY what a campaign run by Romney would be like. Hell and Brimstone against conservatives and buddy old pal to progressives. Even after watching it happen you are still so stuck on your hero worship that you continue these stupid arguments.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Nope, I am one of those supra geniuses that actually can figure out what is going to happen when given the starting points and the starting vectors of a situation.

Since you are not interested in learning from history, we can pretty much understand how you were such an easy mark.

As for Obama and immigration, I see the release as a tiny little action of no real consequence. Maybe a few people die as a result. Then again, anyone think Romney would not be pushing for amnesty for tens of millions, where when you count the dead and sidelined will cause tens of thousands of times as much damage.

The ICE release will be a hit against Obama, because of the timing happening before the sequester hit… Nepolitano was right, that it could have been done at a better time.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 10:24 AM

That, right there, is the problem. His own GOTV system. He refused to approach the base of the party, and in fact spent more time attacking the base than his opponent in the general. Thus he needed an entirely new GOTV system with different people involved than the ones that were experienced!

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 10:58 AM

What about it? It is Romney’s job to convince. Voters are not slaves tied to a party. I still am not convinced he would have been a better president when you look at the total effects of the presidency over say a 12 year period.
I tend to think Kerry would have been a better president than Bush’s second term, after having looked at the results, Housing Bubble and TARP as well as turning over the Nation to Obama.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 11:01 AM

I remember Romney backing Bush on the comprehensive immigration reform. What do you remember?
You remember the campaign promises?

When the legislation was in the works, ready to be voted on, Romney wa there pushing for it to happen. When there was no legislation, but an opportunity to be on the right of his opponents on something that he thought did not matter much, he was on the exact opposite side. Of course, he also has NEVER been for enforcing our current laws, even in his own state as governor…

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 12:32 PM

So, what you are saying is that Romney captured a small sliver of moderates and tired of Obama voters which might have otherwise stayed home, but who instinctively voted for Democrat senators, while at the same time left at home a large number of conservatives who would have helped us regain the senate because he had a terrible get out the vote effort.

So not only was Romney the wrong guy at the top, but even for coattails he was a negative for the party.

Newt remained positive, with almost no negative attacks on any of the competition until after his first Primary victory in South Carolina.

Romney had been running a scorched earth campaign from the git go.

History is not your friend.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Everyone loves to talk about how honorable Romney is. He reminds me more of that eddie guy on leave it to beaver. Always there to stab someone in the back when he knows he can get away with it, but to your face, the nicest guy around. Same damned schtick Obama used in his primary against Hillary.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 1:45 PM

People like to attack Newt as if he was attacking from the left when attacking Romney.
Of course, I do not understand how that works out. Romney is supposed to be a honorable guy, honesty in dealings sort of person. Yet when a company he invests in, is the primary liaison for his company to, and it increases the amount of fraud against medicare and medicaid significantly under his watch, and is then offloaded to another company for a profit, an honorable man would make the other company whole. It was his responsibility to sell a company honestly, no? But he has multiple stories about when he knew there was a problem. When he sold the company, he supposedly had no idea there were problems. But when he was faced with questions about his failure in leadership later, he claimed he knew about the problems and had gotten them under control before the sale. Of course, one of those is a lie, is that the character of an honorable man? I am sorry, but your business dealings are fair game in a campaign. Anyone who thought Obama, with a billion dollars and all the media on his side was not going to have access to this information unless Newt brought is up is pretty ignorant.

Now, if Romney did not have a problem with this, as though he had dealt honestly in his business practices, and was not hypocritical between his business and political rhetoric, Newts attacks would not have had much of an effect. You just meet it with a calm demeanor and state the facts and let it stand. But instead, Romney had all his right media outlets lay out a scorched earth campaign against Newt that was anything but grassroots. It was pure artificial turf.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Well, when Obama is out of office and the healing begins we can all forget Romney.
Since he is on stage, he is fair game.
Here you are still defending the loser.

Quick, lets see if we can SHAME astonerii into shutting up. How about you just let Romney take the BEATING he deserves for not wanting the presidency, but wanting to be the candidate?

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 1:59 PM

I think he got beat up by a Mormon. He really doesn’t like them. Mitt gives him an outlet.

You know what you did, you took a dig and then once called on it let the hate flow. Is attacking religion fair game? Maybe it is.

Of course I know what I did. I am the one who did it. What you want to do is claim you understand why I did it with no evidence on your side. Just a desire to attack me in a way in which you imagine it will cause me to feel shame.

I’m pretty sure calling me a moron is a personal attack, which once again makes you a hypocrite.

That would be a personal flaw in your character. Not one on my argument. Like Romney, you want to ability to unfettered personal attacks on anyone you do not agree with, but the moment someone counter punches, OMG that was totally unfair, unjust and totally evil, stand down and let me have my way with you!

You know why you are here. And to be fair, I don’t know if you used to be a Mormon, or one treated you bad, or fired you or what. But you have some hate issues.

Never was. I attended Methodist as a child. Listened to the Mormons often that my grandmother entertained in our home. I have no animosity against Mormons in the least. That said, I am not one and do not hold solidarity with them.

And it’s not a personal attack to point out that you have been sitting in one spot for several hours trying to bring down a man and a faith because you have issues. I know you didn’t brush your teeth today, that’s not a personal attack. it’s just fact. You need a friend not a computer. And until you stop hating so much, you won’t get one.

Actually, I get paid for sitting here, waiting for my leads to find work for me. I am a very productive individual, and I hate to have brain down time, it allows the pain I feel 24/7 to have more power over me. It is no more unhealthy than wait for it, holding an office job! Gasp!

Is there someone you could call that would help you out? Or have you alienated everyone you know. You work from home too? Any interactions with people? Just trying to help.

You’re a screwed up little dude, but it’s okay we all have our problems. Just being honest in all my dealings.

Rusty Allen on March 4, 2013 at 4:21 PM

You do what ever religion you adhere to a total disservice when you talk like that. But hey, you are POPULAR with the ROMNEY supporters, at least you have that going for you.

I couldn’t agree more. You nailed it. I say this as an life long registered independent voter, I’ve never wanted a repub. elected so bad as I did this time, yet the whole primary was one big Dem mine field that all the repubs raced into.

Seriously, dude, the moment you resorted to hate speech, I stopped caring what you had to say. At this point I’m only curious as to just how clueless, pompous, and hypocritical you really are.

So far you really aren’t disappointing.

WolvenOne on March 4, 2013 at 4:34 PM

You still have not proven any hate speech loser.

Well color me surprised that you are a massive hypocrite. Seems to be pretty much the way of the MORMON LIFE?

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Show me the hate? I was just calling the spade a spade. Hypocritical about the debatable honorability of business dealings based on whether the person was favorable to them or not…

It was an attack on their form of debate. It does nothing to institute hate on a religion. In fact, it supports the idea that the religion enforces a negative view on that type of activity. It was meant to shame the person for being said religion and still use such a method of debate.

Now, I did incorrectly identify her religion, but since it was not Islam, I was still correct in the general. Catholicism also frowns upon hypocrisy. Islam on the other hand states it is OK to lie to infidels in order to benefit the caliphate.

You can call it hate, but it was not and cannot be interpreted as such by anyone looking at it with an unbiased eye.

You have the persecution complex commonly observed in racists and bigots.

Alberta_Patriot on March 4, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Jews, Mormons have the same complex. Why did you skip those? The polish also have the same problem… But you picked two specific groups… Usually the person decrying racism and bigotry the loudest are its most ardent practitioners…

You have the persecution complex commonly observed in racists and bigots.

Alberta_Patriot on March 4, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Jews, Mormons have the same complex. Why did you skip those? The polish also have the same problem… But you picked two specific groups… Usually the person decrying racism and bigotry the loudest are its most ardent practitioners…

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 4:46 PM
Ah, there it is…
Sounds like you… Hope you feel better now that you got it out…

Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.

I don’t have to, YOU, make your bigotry and vitriol readily apparent for all to see.

WolvenOne on March 4, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Psychological
Just for good measure.projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.

Well color me surprised that you are a massive hypocrite. Seems to be pretty much the way of the MORMON LIFE?

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Show me the hate? I was just calling the spade a spade.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 4:44 PM

I don’t hate the jews, I just wish they’d stop faking the Holocaust and carrying out attacks like 9/11!

Seriously dude, if you could just step outside yourself and see how your comments appear… I don’t know if you’d stop feeling the way you do, but you wouldn’t be so quick to say these things thinking that you’re helping your cause.

I don’t hate the jews, I just wish they’d stop faking the Holocaust and carrying out attacks like 9/11!

Seriously dude, if you could just step outside yourself and see how your comments appear… I don’t know if you’d stop feeling the way you do, but you wouldn’t be so quick to say these things thinking that you’re helping your cause.

Alberta_Patriot on March 4, 2013 at 5:12 PM

I am going to repeat again…Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.
Being in Alberta, I do not think there is any hope for you, and ifyou do let your true feelings out, I am sure there is a hate crimes court that will string you up.

Romney sold a company he claims he knew had legal problem to another company without having given those details out to that company, and when the government came along and fined the new owners more than the company was worth, Romney washed his hands and moved onto his next, likely nefarious money transfer scheme. Honor to such a degree is beyond measure!
astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Not true. Bain was involved in managing dozens of corporations at the time. The fraud at Damon was well underway long before Bain acquired it and Bain personnel cooperated with law enforcement during their investigation.

Romney was never considered a suspect and was never charged with any crime.

Well color me surprised that you are a massive hypocrite. Seems to be pretty much the way of the MORMON LIFE?

No one will forget the heavy-handed attacks on Newt Gingrich, at least, as soon as his star began to rise after a debate in North Carolina.

I won’t forget the disgusting Gingrich, who will never just go away. Frankly, Scarlett, Newt deserved a scorching attack, and if he got it, I say, HURRAH!

Mitt Romney always WAS and always WILL BE the best candidate around for the Republican Party. I wouldn’t have voted for ANY other candidate, unless it was Ron Paul, and certainly would have NEVER voted for Newt Gingrich, Rick “the liar” Santorum, or anyone else.

Get a clue, GOP. You simply CANNOT win if you don’t find your moral high ground and stick to it. The “evangelical rump” of the GOP is KILLING THIS PARTY.

Get rid of these “meddlesome priests” of hypocrisy; get back to the fundamentalism of economic honesty and stop lying to your own base.

Evangelicals and NeoConservatives love BIG GOVERNMENT as long as they run it.

The American people can see that as plain as the nose on their face. They don’t buy you because they don’t believe you. They don’t believe you because you keep lying to them, thinking “messaging is everything.” If you would find a moral core and stick to it, you’d find voters. Seriously.

But, since you seem to think that any attack on a company is OWS, I thought for sure you were on the side of redeeming ENRON. That is not the case? Well color me surprised that you are a massive hypocrite. Seems to be pretty much the way of the MORMON LIFE?
astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 2:58 PM

A Stoner 2, you are a low-class, filthy bigot and a disgrace to HotAir. Just as you showed what a hateful, repulsive piece of trash you are when you gleefully rejoiced upon hearing the news of Breitbart’s death and joked that he probably died of AIDS (we all have seen how much you hate gays and how you hated Breitbart for being a pro-gay conservative and not an embarrassing bigot like you), so too have you reminded us all what a sick little greasy pothead you are with your anti-Mormon spam.

The truth is that a loser like you isn’t even fit to shine Mitt’s shoes.

The pompous, OWS-supporting, serial adulterer Newt lost to a better man and a better candidate. Deal with it.

Asstoner hasn’t posted for a while. I’m pretending he showered and went for a walk in the sun. He will be back before twilight though because that’s when the Mormon magic death squads roam.
Rusty Allen on March 4, 2013 at 7:08 PM

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 1:57 PMRomney is supposed to be a honorable guy, honesty in dealings sort of person.

Can you expand on this comment? “Honesty in dealings”?

Rusty Allen on March 4, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Romney helped spread the lie that Gingrich had “resigned in disgrace”. I’m no fan of Gingrich, but he never attacked Romney. Once Gingrich went ahead of Romney in the polls, Team R had to go into the gutter in ways they wouldn’t have dreamed of doing against Obama.

Anyway, the fact that the primary was “blistering” given that we had the Officially Anointed versus a Klown Kar of third-stringers showed how weak Romney was and how many DIDN’T want him to be the nominee. What was it supposed to be, a coronation?